I think Trump gets something more than that, something quite significant. He's planning to get the nomination, and if and when he does, he will characterize his pledge as part of a bargain: Republicans support Republicans. They must support him. They can't peel off and say that at some point The Party's nominee is such a dangerous demagogue that support must be withheld.

60 comments:

"He's planning to get the nomination, and if and when he does, he will characterize his pledge as part of a bargain: Republicans support Republicans."

My guess is there's little chance they would not. It would be him or Hillary/Sanders/Biden. I even think I'd come around to vote for him, though at the moment I view him to be unqualified to be President.

@Original Mike At least some Republicans will reject the nominee. Not the Party as an entity perhaps, but it might give something less than all-out support. This gives him leverage, in public and behind the scenes.

By his action at the debate, he generated a wave of establishment angst and they decided to trap him by making him sign a pledge. I think he laid a trap for them, making them sign the same pledge to support him. Then he holds a news conference that morphs into a half hour campaign event. Covered live by many outlets, including Rush Limbaugh. At zero cost to him.

Can you say, "Crazy like a fox?"I'm not a Trumpbeliever but I have watched with some amusement as he runs circles around the hapless Stupid Party.It was an obvious trap. One of Trump's serious obstacles to the nomination was always that the rest of the field would not throw their support behind him as nominee, which they traditionally have done in the name of party solidarity. Now any of the losers who publicly denounce Trump will destroy and future they would have had in politics since they would be labeled as traitors.He may have come from money, but he is no fool.

I think this is less than it seems as Bush failed a similar "name that guy" test when he was running in 2000.

HH: He runs the Quds Forces.DT: Yes, okay, right.HH: Do you expect his behavior…DT: The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by …HH: No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces.DT: Yes, yes.HH: …is the bad guys.DT: Right.HH: Do you expect his behavior to change as a result…DT: Oh, I thought you said Kurds, Kurds.HH: No, Quds.

Trump is not about substance. He can get guys who know substance to help. He is all about fighting the PC police.

Trump is utterly unsuited to being President of the United States of America but I'm starting to get the appeal. I heard him in a phone interview on a Sunday morning show. When asked a question, he would answer it.

A normal politician, when asked a question, will say something like "Well Tim, let's talk about what's good for America's children.." and then recite some talking point his staff has written for him."

A Trump presidency in a deal making relationship with a Republican congress would probably push both political branches of government in the correct center-right direction in what would be a deal-making administration, because the establishment Republicans would be making deals with Trump instead of the increasingly left-wing Democrats.

Phil 3:14: " 'Conservative', you keep on using that word; I do not think you know what it means."

It doesn't mean what you think it means, either.

In the current political landscape it's just a fuzzy term thrown around to reference either 1) the senescent GOP (pols and donor class), or 2) members of certain now inchoate but inevitable new identity group (groups?) forming as the U.S. continues the process of banana-republicization.

At this stage for Trump, signing the pledge is no big deal for him. His polls are high enough that he will be in the GOP race long enough that he could not be able to put together a ballot access effort. Too many deadlines, and too many wheels have to be in motion to even hope to get to get on the ballot as an independent in all of the states.

I'm not saying he can't win. Bush also blew a similar and more obvious gotcha series of questions in 2000. One difference was that in 2000, it was not obvious that foreign policy would dominate Bush's presidency. He was going to be a domestic policy guy. That changed on 9/11.

Trump should know more about our principle enemy, Iran. It would be like asking Wendell Willkie in 1940 about Hitler or Goering.

Hillary will win if she stays in, especially if Trump is the candidate.

Republican establishment is so upgefucht they can't eliminate a Trump candidacy. Republican electorate is so uninformed they support a Trump candidacy.

This will be a cakewalk for such an experienced, dishonest, unscrupulous candidate as Hillary. She will win in a landslide, to the doom of the US, and Trump will make millions off his candidacy somehow and be happy.

I followed the link hoping to see some evidence of that adverbial phrase, but instead it links to Trump's famous bestseller on Amazon, through the Althouse portal no less, leading me to conclude that Althouse is, at least partially, about the deal.

People are hired all the time at big corporations that do not know diddley about the main product of their new firm. They are leaders and have demonstrated their competence. They do not take pop quizzes about the new industry as a part of their vetting. We have arrived at the place where we insist on credentials while despising the credentialed.

By asking the question the MSM (and Althouse, BTW) is implying that Trump has pledged to support the Republican ticket in return for some consideration; to paraphrase Professor Althouse a deal has been struck.

Now, just what kind of deal could the Republican Party offer Trump to induce him to do that which he would be disinclined to do otherwise, which is the logical implication of "the deal" of which Trump is all about, according to Althouse? No doubt Trump has been stiffed often enough to know that no deal is more eminently stiffable than one reached with a corporate body composed of politicians, especially one headed by the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and especially one denied to exist by both parties. Just what could be offered that could not be snatched away without consequence? (Trump in January 2017: Where's my X that you promised me for supporting the ticket? GOP: What promise was that? Trump: The one we both denied existed... oh, forget it. GOP: It's forgotten.) The only promisable thing that Trump could ask for and be assured of receiving is a vice-presidential shot. Can anyone imagine Trump regarding the vice-presidency as any other than far beneath his station? Not me. Ergo, I conclude no deal has been struck on the grounds of patent absurdity.

Your commentary reminds me of Roy Moore "hoping" we don't have a war ... because gay marriage. Moore certainly represents gays marrying as an example of "middle class people who refuse to be pushed around by the leftist religion." People who don't want it to happen are being "pushed around" because it's happening anyway! Oh, the horror of it all.

Fewer strains of such apocalyptic rhetoric will spread from these sources the next time a Republican wins the Presidency. Of course if Republicans lose this next election and the one after it, then such talk will be so normal it might well give rise to terrorist action. We shall see.

The (charming but ridiculous) idea that "the left" has been "triumphant" is where all this angst is coming from. Maybe it is arguable that in the last 8-10 years, US government policy and attitudes *within the specific realm of Social Issues* have shifted a bit more liberal, but even that claim on deeper examination would prove specious. Meanwhile the corporate control of our economy remains Triumphant in the realest sense of the term, and we're still bombing the holy fuck out of people all over the place in true neocon fashion. But oh my god gay people can get married and so the "left" is "triumphant." Or something.

Romney, whom you clearly adore, was the GOP candidate and he lost and what followed was more of the same apocalpyptic language and the same "guns-flying-off-the-shelves" paranoia from all the usual doomcriers.

Listen: at least in terms of the little digital self you have fashioned and inflicted upon others, violence is indeed *what you want.* You've made this clear. You are eager for violence against those with whom you disagree (though also happy to be old enough that you might not have to face the ramifications of what such violence might mean). And that says enough about your sorry ass, right there.

Bush also blew a similar and more obvious gotcha series of questions in 2000. One difference was that in 2000, it was not obvious that foreign policy would dominate Bush's presidency. He was going to be a domestic policy guy. That changed on 9/11.

Trump should know more about our principle enemy, Iran. It would be like asking Wendell Willkie in 1940 about Hitler or Goering.

"US government policy and attitudes *within the specific realm of Social Issues* have shifted a bit more liberal, but even that claim on deeper examination would prove specious."

The violence you seem to be concerned about is coming from people who, when they hold a rally in DC, pick up not only their own trash but that of others.

The US government "policy and attitudes" you love is about more than "Social Issues"although it is certainly about that.

Abandoning Iraq and trying to abandon Egypt and Libya is more than a "Social Issue." I know Boooosh did it ! but some of us think (I know we are tiresome readers of history) it began in 1914 with the First World War.

I would strongly encourage you to get out of your bubble, read some history and look around.

Life may get a lot more scary for you lefties and it won't be coming from me. I'm just an old guy with a long memory.

You can scare Christian cake bakers but there are people around who don't scare as easy.

It's pretty clear you didn't understand my comment at all. You've been saying you think we need a revolution for a long time now. I was not talking about protestors who pick up their own trash; I was talking about you and those who think like you.

Mostly it's because you don't care what I wrote, which is fine. But why then pretend to be in dialogue?

You've written you think the country needs a revolution and you damn well know it . Why not own it? I'd have thought you'd be proud .

And as for your boogeyman "left," I won't speak for any but myself but I will say again I wasn't saying gun owners are violent . I wasn't talking about gun owners at al. I was talking about people who think like you do .

But again , you people will stfu about it if a Republican wins the White House. Which as far as I can tell will be the lone perk.

"The good point of this "pledge" is there is no point to worrying whether or not Trump would honor it, anymore than he honored his contracts with his vendors, tenants and contractors."

You notice the Man who, using the law, gets everyone to submit to his will, especially the next group of investors, solely because it is The Man's will, and you are surprised this Man is different from you in some way?

You are saying the Perry Mason of civil disputes, Donald Trump as his own client (I presume?), is so much better at law, in terms of getting the money he wants, we should all look at him as a moral deficient, unlike you and me* to an extent his magic court judgments or Judgements or whatever, don't matter at all? They don't signal he can do what he wants because he thinks it so and comes out on top every single time, even when in wave after wave of legal jurisdictions' authority?

Lincoln was shot at the play, and you seemingly would divine special meaning in the power of the lighting that night and how it accented the rear stages' mise en cine.

"He will hold you to your side of the bargain — your side, as interpreted by him, in the new context, that he foresaw better than you"

And he will do it with transparency via many different legal systems. He isn't just talking anymore, although his talk is obviously transparent and superseding that his actions in courts throughout the land have displayed more transparency and literal accountability than many law professors can tolerate, or any peer of Trump's ever.

*Of course there exists the possibility McCain as POTUS nukes Vanuatuu for the Hell of it being destroyed without consequence on his command, like all those damn planes he killed in his arrogance of being born Military Nobility, like all *&%^*& Admirals son's are...

And so yes, things could be worse without Obama and with something not Obama.

Yep.

Very, very strong argument, that things could be worse maybe.

Fear is perhaps the only argument, effective.

Hillary would hate heretics like Midshit Professors who like to pretend Scott Walker isn't Nazi.

Suck my cock, Buckley. When was the last time you sat on 10,000 lbs of JP-5 and lit a match?

Harrogate, you are the one who is apparently afraid that if you listen to what your opponents are saying it will make it harder for you to win the argument, which, apparently by you, is all that matters.

Buck, WTF? Respecting the man's service, and what I cannot doubt is his devotion to his country, is not equal to an endorsement for President or even for Senator. The second and third paragraphs I can't even understand, I assume you are drunk again or fake-drunkposting, whichever it is.